Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
Jalajamany – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of criminal appeal case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the alleged crime and conviction (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. contentions against the prosecution's evidence (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. prosecution's rebuttals to defense arguments (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. judicial consideration of witness examination (Para 10) |
| 6. assessment of demand and acceptance of bribes (Para 12 , 15) |
| 7. conduct of investigation and preliminary enquiry question (Para 18 , 20) |
| 8. legal requirements of demand and acceptance for convictions (Para 25 , 30) |
| 9. final ruling and sentence modification (Para 34 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), by the sole accused in C.C.No.27/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the trial court records.
3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (
The conviction of a public servant for bribery requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is met when evidence establishes exigent demands backed by corroborative testimony, with appropriate p....
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; credible evidence supporting the accused's guilt suffices against claims of innoc....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conviction.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
